FMRI evidence of memory representations of somatosensory stimuli in the human brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinct brain regions process innocuous vibration and cutaneous heat pain. The role of these areas in the perception of pain is still a matter of debate; and the role of these areas in the mediation of memory of somatosensory stimuli is uncertain and has not been studied with brain imaging in healthy human volunteers. All experiments described here, involved an experimental design, which included a delayed-discrimination paradigm and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). In manuscript #1, we aimed at unraveling the cerebral correlates of attention and spatial localization of innocuous vibrotactile stimuli applied to the right volar surface of the forearm. In this study, we report that increased degrees of attention to the vibrotactile stimuli were associated with heightened levels of activation in several brain areas. In manuscript #2, we investigated the short-term memory for sensory aspects (intensity and location) of cutaneous heat pain delivered to two areas (thenar and hypothenar eminences) of the palm of the right hand. In this experiment, the memory and control trials were presented in blocks, whereby the subjects could predict what trials were going to follow. This study revealed that the presentation of painful stimuli evoked activation in different brain regions than those activated during the online maintenance (interstimulus interval or ISI) of the intensity and spatial features of those stimuli; a process, which I will refer to short-term memory. In manuscript #3, we investigated again short-term memory for sensory aspects of heat pain (as in manuscript #2), but in this case, the memory and control trials were presented in a randomized order. In this study, we found that the perception and short-term memory of pain were processed by a comparable network of areas. The predictability of the memory and control trials may have contributed to these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".